Talk:Kilobyte

Redirect to byte

I see that most of the prefix-byte articles where changed a couple years ago to re-direct to byte. IMO that's a good start. I suggest doing the same for kilobyte, megabyte, and gigabyte. Consistency is only a small reason. The main reason is that there is no value having an article that describes the metric prefixes for each unit of measure. The point of the prefixes is that they apply the same to all units of measure.

Yes, WRT units of information metric sizes are wonky. They are decimal based, but actual sizes are binary based. Yes, there are [[binary prefix]es. This is all covered in both units of information and [[binary prefix]. There is no point discussing that for each metric prefix of byte. It's the same information! Link KB, MB and GB to byte and have byte discuss the whole metric/binary thing.

One person commented that "Wikipedia has no problem with duplication and redundancy (as long as it's cited/refed)". But I do! For multiple reasons. Duplicated info tends to diverge over time which leads to inconsistent info and wrong info. It frustrates readers who find the duplicate info and think: this is silly; it's the same info as on that other page. One thing that I often think about WP and life in general: Just because something satisfies the rules does not mean it's a good or wise thing to do. Quality and reasonableness go beyond rules. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Late to this, but a similar sentiment has started to emerge at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM#Add Terabyte. YFB ¿ 00:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

It is curious that the article opens with mentioning the recommended "kB" for kilobyte, but shows "KB" later on without mentioning the 'conflict'. It is correct that "KB" appears, e.g. in Windows, though lower case 'k' is the standard way of representing "kilo", as in "kg" and "km". The article does not even suggest that a line of reasoning for the upper case K might be that a kilobyte is actually larger than 1000 bits... I would not go along with that but it's a not entirely illogical thought.

Kilobyte = kB and kilobit is kb.

Similarly, MB = megabyte and Mb - megabit. Dori1951 (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

According to Metric prefix, the official abbreviation for the kilo- prefix is "k". That said, some operating systems such as Windows (I just checked the file explorer in Windows 11) so use "KB". I don't know that it's too important, since "K" is not assigned to any metric prefix so there can be no confusion as to what "KB" means. I should have read the article before posting. "kB" is for the traditional metric prefix "kilo", meaning 1000 bytes. "KB" refers to 1024, or 210, bytes. Both definitions are referred to as "kilobytes". - ZLEA T\C 19:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC) The symbol KB does not represent 1000 bytes, so it is not a kilobyte. Is this what you mean? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC) Redirect to byte I see that most of the prefix-byte articles where changed a couple years ago to re-direct to byte. IMO that's a good start. I suggest doing the same for kilobyte, megabyte, and gigabyte. Consistency is only a small reason. The main reason is that there is no value having an article that describes the metric prefixes for each unit of measure. The point of the prefixes is that they apply the same to all units of measure.

Yes, WRT units of information metric sizes are wonky. They are decimal based, but actual sizes are binary based. Yes, there are [[binary prefix]es. This is all covered in both units of information and [[binary prefix]. There is no point discussing that for each metric prefix of byte. It's the same information! Link KB, MB and GB to byte and have byte discuss the whole metric/binary thing.

One person commented that "Wikipedia has no problem with duplication and redundancy (as long as it's cited/refed)". But I do! For multiple reasons. Duplicated info tends to diverge over time which leads to inconsistent info and wrong info. It frustrates readers who find the duplicate info and think: this is silly; it's the same info as on that other page. One thing that I often think about WP and life in general: Just because something satisfies the rules does not mean it's a good or wise thing to do. Quality and reasonableness go beyond rules. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Late to this, but a similar sentiment has started to emerge at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM#Add Terabyte. YFB ¿ 00:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC) ~2026-33108-02 (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion highlights

The discussion highlights a long-standing source of confusion in computing: the difference between metric prefixes (kilo = 1000) and binary quantities (powers of 2). A concise summary: kB = kilobyte = 1,000 bytes (SI standard). kb = kilobit = 1,000 bits. MB = megabyte = 1,000,000 bytes. Mb = megabit = 1,000,000 bits. The capitalization matters: B = byte b = bit Historically, many computer systems used: 1 KB = 1,024 bytes (2¹⁰ bytes) because memory sizes naturally aligned with powers of two. This practice became widespread before standards bodies addressed the issue. To remove ambiguity, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) introduced binary prefixes: KiB (kibibyte) = 1,024 bytes MiB (mebibyte) = 1,048,576 bytes GiB (gibibyte) = 1,073,741,824 bytes Under modern standards: Term Standard Meaning kB 1,000 bytes KiB 1,024 bytes MB 1,000,000 bytes MiB 1,048,576 bytes The statement in the discussion that "KB refers to 1024 bytes" reflects historical and common usage in some software (including versions of Windows), but it is not the current SI/IEC standard. Standardized notation treats KB and kB as equivalent symbols for kilobyte (1,000 bytes), while KiB is the correct symbol for 1,024 bytes. The second part of the discussion is about Wikipedia article organization. The argument is that separate articles for kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte, etc., may duplicate information already covered in articles about bytes and binary prefixes, potentially leading to inconsistencies over time. That is an editorial question rather than a technical one. ~2026-33108-02 (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Far too much emphasis on SI definition

This article in its current form places far too much emphasis on the power-of-10/decimal interpretation of "kilobyte" rather than the more widely used binary form: 2¹⁰ or 1024.

The average person either does not know anything about what -byte they are using, or vaguely remembers the 1024 definition; this is why even the borderline-duplicitous manufacturers which swear by the decimal interpretation of prefixes (10³ rather than 2¹⁰ (1024)) will still market a "512GB" (~476.8 GiB) alongside a "1TB" (~931.3 GiB) drive.

I have yet to find any use of the 10³ definition outside of marketing that is not someone trying to be "technically" correct in contrast to reality. ~2026-39002-79 (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The use of the base 10 definition is widespread for disk storage media. Perhaps you will not find the kilobyte in use because modern disks come in gigabytes and terabytes, but these are still base 10. Where have you looked? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)